This chapter reports comprehensively on the collective replies to the questions asked during the survey. The write-up is free from any attempts at analysis. The analysis and conclusions were presented in chapters 2 and 3.
The presentation of this chapter follows, with minor deviations only, the sequence of investigation as reflected in the questionnaires. However, questionnaires 1 and 8 are not reported upon here. Since they concern the survey itself, they are discussed in the report dealing with the survey as such.
In the write-up of the answers to questions in questionnaires 2 to 7 that follows, all factual statements are referred back to the question from which the information came. This is done by giving the number of the question in paranthesis at the end of the concerned sentence. In those rare occasions where the authors have introduced information which is not originating in the questionnaires, this has been indicated to the reader by placing that information in square brackets.
The survey covered 5 of the 9 districts (4). On the average two interviews were carried out per village (8). A total of 89 individuals were interviewed. They grouped into 46 practising, 22 former (or abandoned) and 21 potential fish farmers. Four of the respondents were women, the rest men (2). The average age of respondents at the time of the survey was 46 years; the youngest reported 22 years and the oldest 87. There was a fair number of young heads of households, 27/89 or 30% between 22 and 32 years of age. Also there were many elderly, 31/89 or 35% between 52 and 82 years of age (3).
Those who have Bemba as a mother tongue were the overwhelming majority, and account for (72/89 or) 81%. Lungu was the second most important language; (9/89 or) 10% reported that language as mother tongue. The remainder of the respondents were split amongst: Mambwe, Nyanja, Bisa and Tumbuka (19).
About one in five (18/89) do not report the year they left school (20). Most of the remainder left at an age ranging from 16 to 20.
The majority of the respondents, (77/89 or) 87%, can both read and write their mother tongue. Only (7/89 or) 8% report this ability also for a second language. The most common second language is English, spoken by (27/47 or) 57% of those who report the ability to communicate in two or more languages (19). Nine individuals, (9/89 or) 10%, report that they can neither read nor write their mother tongue.
A large part of the respondents, (35/89 or) 39%, state that they at one time or another have held a salaried job. About the same number say no, they have not, and the rest, 24% have not responded to the question.
While (31/89 or) 35% have lived for more than a year outside their village (10), only (7/89 or) 8% have lived outside Zambia (11).
Some (55/89 or) 62% of respondents report that they control land and permanent buildings. Few have any mechanized farm equipment (4/89) or other motorized vehicles (5/89). A little over a quarter report that they control [possess] farm animals (15).
All obtain cash in one form or another. The most common is through sale of crops, (77/89 or) 87. Salaries and sale of livestock and farm animals contribute for far fewer of the respondents (16).
A clear majority of those interviewed consider that they take decisions concerning fish culture on behalf of their household, (71/89 or) 80% (12). When they take such decisions they do so in their capacity as sole, (73/89 or) 82% decision makers (13). Most, (59/89 or) 66% consider that they manage the ponds (14).
A minority, (21/89 or) 24%, reported that they exercised a political role. This was usually at the branch level (18). A few, (15/89 or) 17%, did not answer this question.
All who answered, (87/89 or) 98%, the question about nationality reported that they were Zambians. Two respondents did not answer (22). A slightly smaller majority, (84/89 or) 94%, profess a formal religion. Four respondents said they did not, and one declined to answer (23). Four out of five respondents stated they were members of UNIP. Three respondents did not reply to the question, and the remaining, (14/89 or) 16%, said they were not members of the party.
The pond water area of farms in use, and those not currently used, varies from a minimum of 36m2 to a maximum of just under one hectare (8 300m2). The majority (35/62 or (56%), of the farms have a combined water area of less than 500m2. About a quarter (24%) are larger than 1 000m2 (3). The majority of the ponds (73%) are reported to be drainable (5). Rivers are the most common (57%) source of water, springs and seepage provide water, each, to one quarter of the surveyed ponds. Not one of the ponds obtains water from a man-made reservoir (6). Most, (51/62 or) 82%, have water throughout the year in quantities adequate for fish culture. The five who report water problems, state that they occur in October and November (7).
Most of the farmers, (54/68 or) 79%, had sufficient water in their ponds to culture fish at the time of the survey [October, before the rainy season] (8), but only (34+7/68 or) 60% had [tilapia] in their ponds. This means that one farmer in five had an adequate pond with water but no fish under culture (9).
Few, (14/63 or) 22%, knew, or had an idea of the amount of fish stocked at the beginning of the culture period (10). All who report say that “mixed tilapia” is being culture (12). Only (4/46 or) 9% report that they definitely do not practise intermittent harvesting (13). Amongst those who report this practice, (11/27 or) 40% inform that it is exclusively for home consumption (14). Only 5, or (5/46 or) 11%, reported that they knew the date for the next major harvest. The date given is usually vague (15). As a result, few had a firm idea on the length of the production period (16). Only some, (12/46 or) 26%, of those interviewed replied to the question of how a major harvest will be carried out. Draining is reported to be used in combination with baskets. One respondent claims that he will carry out the next major harvest using hooks (17). None of those interviewed provided a figure for how much fish the next major harvest will give (18 & 19).
Virtually all who have fish in their ponds report that they feed them. About half (22/41) report that they also apply organic fertilizers. Culture in association with animals is uncommon: 3 with poultry and 1 with pigs (20).
This section concerns only those fish pond “owners” who, at the time of the interview, were not culturing fish. Of the 21 who report no fish stocked (9), almost all, (17/21 or) 81%, report that major repairs are necessary to ponds before it is worthwhile to stock them with fish (21). Eight, (8/21 or) 38%, report an intention to stock with fish [that is, to repair and then stock,] (22). Of those 8 who report an intention to stock, only one has a view on how long it will be before he undertakes his first major harvest (24).
Only (8/68 or) 12%, of those interviewed could put a date on their most recent major harvest (25), and even fewer, 7%, provide an estimate of the quantity then harvested. The lowest estimate is 3 kg, the highest 40 (26). Of the six farms for which both harvest and stocking date are provided, only for one is the culture period (prior to last major harvest) estimated to be less than one year (25, 26 & 27).
Amongst the few (five) who reported on past production, only two affirm that no continuous or intermittent fishing was carried out, (29). Those then who affirm that intermittent fishing was carried out report that gillnets, baskets and draining were employed (30). Nobody reports on quantities obtained from intermittent fishing during the most recent production period (31). The two who provide an estimate of the total fish produced during the period say 10 kg (from 348m2 surface area) and 28 kg (from 544m2 pond surface area) (32).
The information provided on culture systems show that, for the current production period, feeding was practised by all (25/25) and organic fertilizers applied by more than half (15/25) of those who answered this question (33 & 34).
Only for two respondents, less than 5% of the sample, did the survey generate the information about production levels which would be necessary as a base to diagnose capabilities, and problem areas, amongst the practising and former fish farmers (35 to 40).
The interviewers passed judgement on the fish farming abilities of 27 practising respondents. Out of these they found that (15/27 or) 56% were familiar with the standard, or normal, procedures used in the type of pond farming [of tilapia] which they were practising; the other 46% were not (42). Only for two of the 15 “capable” fish farmers did the interviewers claim that the knowledge was not applied in the handling of the ponds (44).
Quite a few, (17/46 or) 37%, of the practising farmers report that they are building more fish ponds (47), and a large number, (56/68 or) 82%, have the intention of doing so in the future. Only some, 12%, report an intention not to build any more ponds (48). Virtually all (60/68) practising and former farmers report that they do have sufficient land water to expand (49).
All who responded (60/68) inform that they intend to continue with mixed tilapia species (52). Feeding will be done by almost the same number, (58/63 or) 92%, organic fertilizers will be applied by (37/62 or) 59%.
The majority, (33/46 or) 72%, see fish farming as an activity which will provide fish both to eat and to trade. A minority (20%) see it as an activity which only will provide fish to eat for the members of the economic unit [or household, for the majority], and less than 10% consider it as mainly an opportunity to trade (1).
For the majority of the farmers fish culture is a rather new activity. More than half had stocked their pond for the first time in 1984 or later, and 80% during the last 10 years. The oldest pond in the survey was stocked for the first time in 1953 (2). Almost all respondents (90%) reported to have practised fish culture continuously since they started (3).
The majority (56%) say they get, when harvesting, the quantity they expected at the time of stocking (5). Those who do not, blame animals and poor management (6). Just under half of those interviewed report that they do not know the quantities harvested. Amongst those who report, and they are few (20%), the maximum quantity mentioned is 40 kg. As many as 40% do not reply, [assuming the question was put by the interviewer] (7).
All respondents affirm that they have the right to all fish produced (14). The majority, (25/46 or) 54%, report that people come to purchase fish at pond side (15). If they do not come it is possibly because they are unaware or there are no neighbours around. It also happens that the farmer does not want them to come (16). It does not seem to be a custom to sell tilapia to traders. Only one fish farmer reported he was doing so (17). The main reason (60%) seem to be that there is not enough fish left to interest a trader (18). Those who sell at pond side frequently (77%) sell more than half their harvest (19).
All the economic units [households] report they eat fish (24). A few (13%) report that none of the fish they eat is cultured fish. However, for 43%, cultured fish represents more than half of total consumption (25). Those who obtain fish, generally buy it (26).
Normally, those who culture fish also produce and sell between 4 and 5 agricultural crops and/or types of livestock (29), and most economic units (78%) have some other source of cash as well (30). A large share of the practising fish farmers (41%) report that they obtain no cash from the sale of fish, while 30% get more than 10%, but less than half of their total cash income from fish sales (31).
(i) Access
Almost all (89%) report full control over water supply (8). Those who do not have such control have reported to obtain [guarantees] through customary rights (80%) or title deed (11).
Fingerlings are obtained mostly from Government (56%). Other fish farmers supply to one third; and a few (7%) produce their own fingerlings. Those who use organic fertilizer apply what they have on their farm. The same is true for feed. Only 12% report that they purchase it. Animals raised in association with fish are reported to be obtained from on the farm [presumably this means that they have not been purchased explicitly for the purpose]. When labour is not sufficient at home other fish farmers are brought in (13).
(ii) Alternatives
Few of the farmers regard sale of land and labour, now used in fish farming, as an alternative. It is an alternative for fingerlings. Some (17%) thought they could sell fertilizer and feed they now use in [tilapia] farming (20). Land, water, and fertilizers could all be used for growing crops to eat or sell. Feed, now used in fish farming, seems to be the least useful in crop production [the question did not include reference to livestock]. Labour could be used to grow crops for sale (84%), but not for growing crops for home consumption; only 9% responded that their labour could be put to such use (21 & 22). Only one respondent could find no alternative use for water; two found no alternative use for land. About one quarter replied that there would be no alternative way to use fingerlings (23).
(iii) Share used in fish culture
In no instance is more than a quarter of the land controlled by a respondent employed for fish culture. Some 72% of respondents report the same for water; less than a quarter is used in fish farming. The same applies for the other categories of inputs: organic fertilizers, feed, labour (27). No one rents land or water for use in fish farming. Less than half (39%) report that they purchase fingerlings and that all of them are used in fish culture. If bought, feed and organic fertilizers are not generally used in fish culture. Some (17%) report hire of labour and, in two cases, exclusively to work in fish culture (28).
More than half the practising fish farmers (56%) consider that they either have, or have had, problems with their fish ponds (35). A large portion (43%) of the farmers feel that nobody has been able to give them useful advice during start-up, or subsequently, with problem solving. Those who have received such advice have done so mostly from Government, but more from “other Government Department”, [mainly Department of Agriculture, but also from the NGO: Village Agricultural Programme (VAP), sponsored by NORAD] than from the Fisheries Department (36).
Only a minority (15%) do not intend to modify their fish culture activity in some way. Of those who intend to modify, almost all (75% of respondents) intend to increase the number of ponds. Nobody intends to stop, but 7% are going to reduce their involvement. Several (24%) intend to add another species (32). The proposed changes are expected to increase the overall well-being of the respondent without causing any reduction in other activities [points to unused resources] (33). All envisage benefits in the form of more fish produced. A few (13%) expect that the modifications will lead to a greater difference between income and cost per kg of fish produced.
The data analysed in this section include those supplied by the 46 practising fish farmers and the 22 who had abandoned the activity at the time of the survey.
The respondents have received the idea to start to culture fish from a variety of contacts. The two most common are the Department of Fisheries (24/68 or) 35%, and other (fish) farmers (21/68 or) 31% (1).
The overwhelming majority, (58/68 or) 85% of respondents, decided to start fish culture on behalf of their households. Only two respondents reported that they did not engage anyone else but themselves by their decisions. The sample also includes three schools, one informal and two formal groups, and one hospital (4).
When they decided to start most farmers, (55/68 or) 81%, expected to have fish to eat and to trade. Few, (17/68 or) 25%, considered fish farming to be more risky than the farming of their major agricultural crops (3).
Generally, (63/67 or) 93%, the culture of fish was expected to add to the employment (work load) of the respondents and other members of the [households] economic units. (7/63 or) 11% of households expected to use hired labour (4 & 40). Only exceptionally, (5/68 or) 7%, was it expected to lead to decreased time spent on other activities (41).
(20/68 or) 29% reported that they did not eat [tilapia] at the time they decided to start culture (42). This means that for 16 respondents (24%) the decision to start culture actually meant also an expectation to modify fish consumption habits (2 & 42). For almost half, (21/44 or) 48%, of those who reported that they were eating [tilapia], the quantity eaten represented more than half of their total fish consumption (43). Purchase of fish was common (45/68 or) 66% (44). In fact the culture was expected to contribute to reductions in expenditures on fish for 38 respondents (2 & 44).
There were eight respondents, (8/68 or) 12%, who reported that no other crops or livestock were sold by them. One respondent claimed to be selling 13 different crops or livestock products. The number most frequently reported was 5; the average was also 5 (47). Most of the respondents, (63/68 or) 78%, reported that at the time of the interview they had at least one source of revenue in addition to those originating in sale of crops or livestock. Some (17/68 or) 25% report income from salaries. Other common sources are beer brewing, carpentry, barkeeping and milling (48).
The initial effort varies from 1 pond, (19/47 or) 40%, to 16. However, (32/47 or) 68% had either 1 or 2 ponds before they realized their first major harvest (6). [This variation may have been caused by the fact that the first major harvest came late]. (10/68 or) 15% report that their ponds were built entirely by contracted labour. Six of these cases were households (4 & 5). In (56/68 or) 82% the respondent was involved in construction, half of the time (28/56) with other members of the household (5).
Only (8/68 or) 12% report that they used resources not their own to construct their ponds (7). Of the eight, six were households (4 & 7). Of these, only two reported that they borrowed resources, in either case from credit institutions or local money lenders. Gifts were obtained from Government and NGOs (8). Nobody received cash (9) and only one of the two respondents who obtained loans reports that he used it entirely for pond construction (12). The loan was said to have represented more than half the projected value of the initial fish ponds (13).
At the time the respondents decided to engage in fish culture, (25/68 or) 37% felt they did not have the knowledge they needed [to make the venture a success] (21). The others who felt they had the knowledge had obtained it through visits to Government farms, (18/42 or) 43%, or to private fish farmers, (13/42 or) 31%. (8/42 or) 19% had participated in training courses (22). Those who felt they were inadequately prepared had a variety of intentions to remedy the shortfall. The most common were visits from DoF, (10/25 or) 40%; visits to private fish farmers, (7/25 or) 28%, and visits to Government fish culture stations, (6/25 or) 29%. Seven intended to have recourse to more than one of these solutions (23).
By the time of the interview about a third of the farmers (22/68) had attended a training course; a slightly larger number, (28/68 or) 41%, report not having done so, although they had the intention to (24). The reasons most frequently sited for this failure to attend are: “Had difficulties in getting to know where and when” and “Had no opportunities yet” (25).
(i) Which resources did respondents have access to?
Slightly more than half the ponds, (37/68 or) 54%, were intended to be supplied by river water. Groundwater was the intended source for (19/68 or) 28%, and the rest would obtain water from springs (28). Seven of the respondents, (7/68 or) 10%, felt they did not have exclusive control over the water supply; of them three were households (7 & 29). Of these respondents four obtained water rights through Government's intervention and three through recourse to customary law (30).
Three of the respondents (none of whom were households) report that they did not have control over the land where they intended to build the ponds; all the others had (32). Two of those without rights obtained them through title deeds; the third through recourse to customary law (33).
Almost two thirds (43/68) of the respondents intend to obtain fingerlings from Government [fish culture stations]. Most of the others, (16/68 or) 25%, would do so from private fish farmers (35). Other inputs (organic fertilizers, feed, animals for associated cultures and labour) were intended to come almost exclusively from the respondent's (economic unit's) own resources (35). The exceptions are found mainly in economic units other than households (2 & 35). A few respondents intended to purchase (35).
(ii) What alternative uses were there for resources?
Somewhat less than half, (30/68 or) 44% of the respondents, appear to be of the opinion that none of the inputs intended for use in the fish culture venture could have been sold. Amongst those who believe they could be sold, fingerlings, (26/38 or) 68%, and feed, (14/38 or) 37%, are the resources most frequently mentioned as saleable (36).
Heads of households (4 & 37) report that possibly with the exception of feed, all resources used in fish culture could at the time have been used in production of food (crops/livestock) for home consumption (37) or for sale (38).
Some (28/68 or) 41%, found that all inputs (or resources) had alternative uses. Amongst those who identified inputs with no alternative uses, fingerling, (29/40 or) 72%, is most frequently mentioned, followed by feed, (11/40 or) 27%, and fertilizer (39).
(iii) What share of resources were intended for fish culture?
Virtually all respondents (60/62 or) 97% report that the share of controlled land intended for fish culture [fish ponds] was less than one quarter. One household reports that all water will be used. However, no household will be using more than half the available water supply. Most of the respondents, (42/62 or) 68%, intended to use less than one quarter. With regard to organic fertilizer (27/44), feed (38/58) and labour (50/62), the intention generally was to use less than one quarter of quantities available to the economic unit (45).
No respondent intended outright purchase of land or water for the fish culture venture. Only five (three of which were households) intended to purchase organic fertilizers. Nine, (9/68 or) 13%, intended to buy feed but only one was going to use the whole quantity for fish culture. One in five, (13/68), intended to use hired labour in fish culture operations. Seven of these were households (4 & 46). Less than half the respondents expected to purchase fingerlings, all of which would be used in the fish culture venture (46).
(i) Restraints on respondents
About (6/68 or) 9% of the respondents reported that they were aware of persons outside their economic units who might disapprove of a decision by them to start to culture fish (15). Reasons for disapproval were linked to status; the respondent's versus the neighbour's (1). Of the six respondents who felt this disapproval only two considered it important (17). [But nevertheless both went ahead with construction; one of them is still practising].
Slightly more than half, (36/68 or) 53%, state that they felt that they needed “someone's” approval before they could start (18); family members; (parents, wife, sister, headman and chief were mentioned). Most of these respondents indicated that they needed the approval of Government (19) and then, most frequently, of the Department of Fisheries (20).
(ii) Assistance available to respondents
During pond construction two out of three (44/68) of the respondents asked the Department of Fisheries for advice (26). Some (28/68 or) 30%, felt there was nobody else to turn to for advice. The rest held the view that they also could have turned to government departments other than the Fisheries Department, (28/68 or) 41%, or other fish culturists, (16/68 or) 24% (27).
About half (9/17) of those who abandoned fish farming stocked their ponds for the first time before 1970; only three of those who had stopped the culture activity at the time of the survey had taken that decision during the three years preceeding the survey (1). Half of those who reported on the date for their last harvest report that it took place sometime during the three years preceeding the survey (2).
Half of those who have abandoned report that they positively do not know the amounts harvested in the previous culture period (maximum, normal, or minimum). Only two farmers gave figures (4). Only one respondent reports that all fish harvested in the past were sold. Three, (3/17 or) 18% report no production; of the rest, 83% report that the harvest has been consumed in the household, and five report that a part was sold (5). Those who traded did so for cash (6).
Only half of those who have abandoned provide a reason for doing so. The low response rate may be explained by faulty design of question. The reason given most often, (9/12 or) 75%, is that inputs were not available. The remainder, (3/12 or) 25%, report too low production or better alternative use for inputs (7). Those who lacked inputs, in fact lacked fingerlings and (3 out of 9) water (8).
Half of those who had abandoned tried to obtain help to restart, or to solve the problems confronting them in their fish culture activity (9). They report that they exclusively approached Government for such help usually, (8/11 or) 73%, departments other than the Fisheries Department (10). The aid requested varied, but most commonly included requests for inputs, advice and for demonstrations of methods (11). Most (8/11) of the farmers reported that they did not receive any help (12).
Three quarters (15/21) of the “potential” farmers interviewed during the survey knew of fish farmers in the neighbourhood, and were aware that the fish being cultured is tilapia. However, they seemed to know little, if anything, of the actual culture practice, or what they could obtain in terms of fish harvested (6).
All of those interviewed claimed that they have seriously considered the possibility of starting to raise fish in ponds. A majority (12/19) have asked either the staff from the Department of Fisheries or other fish farmers to come to their sites to look (9).
Most (17/21) considered that they have sufficient water; or that they have the land required (11).
So why have they not started? A fair number claim they have not had the time, a few (4/17) that they do not have the resources. There are also other reasons given: lack of inputs like water and fingerlings, occupied by other activities, and personal problems (10).
Those interviewed have by no means abandoned the idea. Virtually all (18/21) claim they are still entertaining the possibility (14).
What have they actually done to obtain the needed know-how and resources to proceed? About one third have not asked anyone for any advice. The rest have asked mainly other fish culturists (15) for their evaluation of the site and of the type of culture method to be used. Only one individual reported that he wanted advice on the species to select (16). Those who asked usually also obtained advice. (17).
The most common origin of the idea to culture fish in ponds is another fish farmer (18/20). Only one respondent reported the Department of Fisheries as being the origin (17). About half feel they have the knowledge needed to start the activity. Of these, half have obtained their knowledge by observing practising fish farmers. Only one has participated in a training course.
Without exception two reasons to engage in fish culture were given: to obtain fish to eat and to sell (19). Only three consider it a more risky business than crop or livestock raising (20). It is an activity which, if started, will be started on behalf of the whole household (21).
The concerned households already sell several crops and livestock for cash. The average number reported by 17 respondents is 5; the maximum 10 (61). In addition the household obtain some cash through salaries (4/20), handicrafts (2/20) and beer brewing (62).
All, without exception, intend to employ individuals from the household in the operation of the fish pond. Only one is thinking of employing someone from outside the household (54). The fish culture activity would mean an increase in the workload for those engaged. (7/21 or) 33%, meant that it would not affect their overall workload (55).
While all the concerned households eat fish, there were 2 in which the household members did not eat the type of fish to be cultured [presumably tilapia] (56). In most households [tilapia] already account for half, or more, of all the fish eaten (57). All buy fish; fishing or barter is rare (58).
All who have to construct a pond will participate themselves, either together with contracted labour (10/19), or with other family members (22). Most want to start with 2 ponds; one potential farmer thought 10 was a good number (23).
More than half (12/19) said they would supplement their own resources in some way in order to get started (24). Of these more than half (7/12) would turn to credit institutions; very few (3/12) would ask friends or money-lenders (25). Cash will be the most frequent form of the loan (26); only one potential farmer expects to obtain it in the form of labour. Those who expect cash (8/12) have looked forward to an average loan of 3900 Kwacha (close to US$500, February 1988) (27). For half of those taking loans the borrowed resources are likely to account for more than half of total expenditures for ponds; the remaining four, who volunteered information on this question, thought that it would account for less than half but more than one quarter of the expnditures (29). Repayments will usually be in cash (30).
Of those who feel they do not know enough to manage the ponds, half (5/11) want to go to a training course. The other popular way of obtaining the required know-how is to visit fish farmers or government fish farms (39).
(i) Access
For most (17/20) water will be obtained from a river or a stream; nobody is considering filling a pond through seepage of groundwater (42). Most consider they have control over the water supply (43). Of those three who consider they do not have exclusive control, one will attempt to arrange this through recourse to customary law, the other two through agreement with the existing users of water (44).
All consider that they have control over the land (46). Of the other main inputs needed for the fish culture activity: fingerlings, organic fertilizer, feed, animals (for associated cultures) and labour, it is only fingerlings which must be purchased. They will be purchased (18/20) from Government. All other main inputs will be obtained, almost without exception, from amongst resources already at the disposal of the household (49).
(ii) Alternatives
What alternatives are there for the use of the resources intended for the fish ponds? The obvious ones would seem to be: sale, use in production of agricultural produce (for home consumption and/or for sale), or no alternative use.
All those interviewed report that land, water and labour could equally well have been used in producing crops or animals for home-consumption and/or sale (51 & 52). Fingerlings and feed are those reasons most frequently considered as “saleable” (50). Some (11/20) considered fingerlings as having no alternative use (53).
(iii) Share for fish culture
What is the share destined for the fish culture activity amongst those resources which the household own or produce? For land and labour the portion is small, reported by almost all as less than one quarter of that available. Nobody is prepared to use all their water for fish culture, but some (5/20) would be prepared to use more than half of what is available (59).
Nobody seems prepared to purchase land and water for the specific purpose of fish culture. Most would not be prepared to hire labour (13/20). Some will buy feed; few will buy organic fertilizer.
(i) Support
Potential fish farmers are well aware that there are two sources of potential advice: other fish farmers and the staff of the Department of Fisheries. No other source, in fact, seems to be known in the Northern Province (41).
(ii) Restrictions
Half of the potential farmers felt they needed the blessings of either the headman or wife or family members (34). A majority (13/20) felt they needed approval from Government before they started to construct their fish ponds (35), in this case, of the Department of Fisheries (36). The potential farmers were completely unanimous in the statement that they are not aware of anyone who might disapprove of them starting fish culture (31).
